Philosophical question for IPv6 Day
jeff at gritch.org
Thu Jun 9 02:24:01 CEST 2011
I like the first option, as well, except for one thing. Why have the v6 site at a completely separate URL? Why not both at the same URL?
On Jun 8, 2011, at 5:21 PM, Bill Owens <owens at nysernet.org> wrote:
> Which is better, at this stage of IPv6 deployment and transition:
> - a fully dual-stacked website, functional for a v6-only client without resorting to v4, and located at a separate URL (www.ipv6, etc.)
> - a v6-accessible skeleton at the main URL (www) that isn't functional by itself, and forces the client to use v4 to fetch a substantial amount of the content.
> (I vote for the first choice, since I don't think the second one really proves anything - it doesn't drive backbone traffic, doesn't reveal path problems, etc.)
More information about the ipv6-ops